User talk:RandomCritic/Archive 4

Richard III Society

Hi. I think your merging of this article into the Ricardians article (which itself needs to be moved to "Ricardian" to comply with naming conventions) was a little premature. For a start, there appear to be two Ricardian societies, and you have left the other one where it was. I agree there was some inconsistency, but I don't think this is the best solution. I propose to revert some of your edits accordingly. Deb 21:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

La Vie en R/rose move

I'm not sure how French language songs are capitalized. Wikipedia:Naming conventions is a good place to start for what articles should be titled. But when renaming a page, it's important that you use the move function instead of copy-and-paste. See Help:Moving a page and Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages. The biggest concern is that copy-and-paste moves lose the edit history, which is required for the GFDL, the license all Wikipedia content is under. Also in the future, Wikipedia:Requested moves is useful if you cannot perform the move yourself for whatever reasons. I hope this clears things up! --Christopherlin 05:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hercules/Hercle

Hi RandomCritic,

How do we know that Hercules is from Hercle and not from Heracles? Bacchiad 13:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edith Piaf films

Hi, I saw that you added a list of films to the Édith Piaf article. I was wondering if these are films about her, of if she acts in them, or feature her music? See Talk:Édith Piaf#Films. Thanks and cheers, AxelBoldt 16:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joan of France, Duchess of Berry

Hi RandomCritic: Thanks for your observation concerning Joan's age at her marriage. Please see article discussion, concerning the 1473 date that she became "Duchess of Berry" and the date that the marriage was recognized by the church three years later Sept.8, 1476. The 1473 date must have been the "political reason" for her marriage. Some sources use the 1473 date while others use 1476. Daytrivia 02:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your research. The Sept. 8, 1476 date is indeed more effective. I was trying to validate something for the 1473 date which you have done with the link. I did not rely on the 1473 date but was merely searching and trying to learn. Thanks again for your help.

Another interesting link is [1]

Daytrivia 05:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

English pronunciation of classical names

I am working on this at user:ghuef/sandbox/pronunciation of classical names in english. What do you thinnk?--Gheuf 04:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I found a page where you had written on this topic. Sorry to intrude without introduction. I thought since you seemed knowledgeable you might be able to critique my attempt.--Gheuf 05:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is an EXCELLENT page. Why haven't you put it on the "real" website? Of course I agree with you that no algorithm can capture all the cases: in language, there are exceptions. The value of an algorithm is that it allows us to separate the exceptions from the patterns, making descriptions of the rules shorter. I think my algorithm gets most of the words you list on your page (especially if we consider that it is for Latin and Greek names used in English, as opposed to Latinate or Greek-based English words) -- with the exception of the tricky issues of secondary stresses and whether those vowels should be tense or lax. ("Meleager" has me stumped.) In this section you should also include "Iphigenia" (accented on the first syllable and the penult) since it seems to go against your generalization.--Gheuf 06:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC) Your analysis of "Iphigenia" makes sense but relies on the morpheme boundary. I was trying to analyze it as one morpheme (cf Winnepesaukee which admittedly is not Latin and which I also cannot spell). You should publish your article in print if you don't think it's right for Wikipedia. I have been looking for an article like it for a long time and could only find VOX LATINA and other useless things. What are the nineteenth century sources you mentioned? I would like to read them. I also read your article on Jamshid. Can you recommend any books on Persian historical phonetics?--Gheuf 06:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tips. It's late here now, too. (In fact, for all I know, "here" may also be "there".) So I'm off to bed.--Gheuf 07:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infinitas

Thanks for your contribution to our article, it is most appreciated! You don't happen to have a sanskrit font, do you? Etiam rogo, necessen tecum loqui Anglice? Peace for now, and thanks again!--Ioshus^(talk) 17:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Numismatic Latin

Your coin boxes are a quite nice and informative addition to many articles, but in some cases the Latin could use a little touching up; e.g. "dei gratia" means "by the grace of God", not "thanks be to God" (which is "deo gratias"). I'll be happy to fix them up if I can find all of the coin boxes with Latin inscriptions. RandomCritic 19:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much, RandomCritic, for correcting the Latin inscriptions on my coin images. I regret that my translations were not very good, although I knew the translation of gratia was "by the Grace" rather than "thanks be." This was oversight. Please check out the article on Ferdinand VII to see how I utilized your translation inside a coin box. Another editor suggested the coin box. If you like that, I will utilize other edits you make on the coins. Meanwhile, thanks for the corrections. Coinman62 19:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, Randomcritic, for the edits. I had hoped to change several of these boxes to the dual column box that you are now using, but I just had not gotten around to doing it.

I have been investigating the question you asked, i.e. whether the obverse of the pillar dollar is the side containing the king's name or the pillars. From what I have seen, there seems to be disagreement on the issue. I had seen the Internet site that you provided, but there are other numismatic sites which indicate that the pillar side is the obverse side, not the reverse. I'll research this further and make changes after I have found a conclusive answer.

I was wondering whether we might agree to utilize all upper case when bracketing omitted Latin letters. I doubt that there is a Wikipedia rule, but this is the only thing that looks a little awkward to me. A friend of mine is a typesetter, and she thinks all of the Latin lettering should be upper case. What do you think?

Also, I think most editors prefer to use "8 real" coin instead of "8 reales," because grammatically, you would say "5 dollar bill" or "8 foot ladder" or "7 mile run." I made this change on the Spanish dollar article.

Finally, you are quite correct that the M stands for "Mexico" (actually, I suspect that this is actually abbreviated for the Latin Mexicanus (?) or something similar). But I do know the "O" is the assayer's mark, not the end of the Latin word. In fact, the assayer's mark is what numismatists use to date the coin. This portion of the inscription translation should be changed.

Thanks again for all of your help. I admire your proficiency in Latin. It has been 27 years since I studied Latin in a university. Coinman62 15:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Renaissance and Medieval

Your efforts to clean up the categories are good and I don't mean to edit war. It's not possible to define medieval and renaissance just by date. Even works that occurred solidly in the renaissance period are considered more Medieval and studied by medieval scholars. The Renaissance occurred at different times at different places so what was the Ren in Italy was still solidly medieval elsewhere. Many works are considered both medieval and Ren. - What you have to look at is, which types of scholarship generally studies the work or author, medieval scholars or Ren. - or both. -- Stbalbach 16:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated picture at Trumbull's Declaration of Independence

Hi RandomCritic,

Thanks for your attention to the article, but I disagree about whether the picture should be there twice. I thought a lot about putting this painting in the article two times when I was putting in the key and making changes to it. The reason why I did it is because it is extremely difficult to follow that long list and figure out where someone is in the painting (or vice versa: identifying who someone is who you can see in the painting). You sometimes need to go back and forth between the picture and the list. Since that's the case, having the picture as close as possible to the list is useful. Also, the picture of the painting should be as high as possible in the article to make it crystal clear what painting the article is about, and yet I think it's also important that the key should not be so high in the article. So I did what I normally would not do and included it twice. I think it's an unusual situation for an unusual painting (a few others might follow the same course, but not many). If that picture of the U.S. government's Key was easier to see, I would have used only that. Please reconsider. It would be better to come to a consensus on this. If you'd like, reply here and I'll watch for your reply, or tell me where you'd rather reply. Again, I appreciate your attention to the article. Best, Noroton 05:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestion sounds fine to me, but I have no idea how to do it. Do you? I support the concept. All I want is to help readers understand as quickly and easily as possible who is where. I'm totally flexible as to the means, as long as it's effective. Best, Noroton 21:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Celler Hasenjagd

Thanks for moving that material to an independent article, as well as categorizing the new article under Nazi atrocities. I think the material will be far more useful there than as just a adendum to the Celle article. Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 13:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lothair III

Ciao! I reverted your edit to Lothair III as I think they met in the Lateran palace, not in the church. Bye and good work. --Attilios 09:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Royal page moves

WHOA! STOP! WP:NCNT says Prince/ss comes at the beginning of a page title unless their title (i.e. Prince of Wales or Princess Royal) starts with Prince/ss D B D 19:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Latin grammar

You "corrected" some Latin grammar at the page Lambert II of Spoleto, but I don't know if you should have. I doubt the medieval sources used classical grammar and I copied all the Latin directly from secondary sources. (There was a spelling mistake: renovation --> renovatio.) Did you make any of those corrections based on sources or only on you knowledge of Latin? Srnec 16:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Dizionario and perhaps Wickham, which I have added to the "Sources" section of the article. Srnec 16:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frangleterre

actually the hundred years war was relevant to scottland in my mind because the scottish and the french fought together against the english. now with this war in the england-france relation section the same event does not show the uk-fr relation under the same aspect since they were fighting each other, not really wanting for a union er. what do you think? Paris By Night 15:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

about the link you missed with the damn Jacobites have a look at this. Paris By Night 16:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Female astronauts

Hello -- Wow, you really went to work on Category:Female astronauts! I left it with half a dozen articles tagged, and figured I'd come back and do a whole bunch today -- but you beat me to it. I had no idea there were so many -- I would have guessed about 30 total. Nice job! Cgingold 08:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NYU in popular culture

I am submitting this article for deletion review. Please comment on the process here: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_August_14#NYU_in_popular_culture. Your support is appreciated, as Yale in popular culture (a page almost exactly the same as NYU in popular culture) just survived AfD. Thanks. -- Noetic Sage 23:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GFDL

Regarding your comments on the BJAODN DRV, the license that Wikipedia uses is the GNU Free Documentation License, or GFDL. You were calling it GFLD, which contains a mistaken transposition of two letters. --Cyde Weys 01:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skalholt Map external link in Vinland article

I have added some info to your comments. I spotted that Bristol, England would also be at 56°N according to the Skalholt. This shows that the grid of that map is incorrect as both northern Newfoundland and Bristol are actually 51°N! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.86.225 (talk) 14:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your creation of a section on Pali morphology

Bravo!

Category:Circumnavigators of the globe

Greetings - Please join the discussion that's under way to rename Category:People who have walked or run around the world or are attempting, which as you've no doubt already guessed, is a sub-category of Category:Circumnavigators of the globe. (I only just discovered that you were its creator.) This discussion is probably in its final day, so don't delay if you're interested! Cgingold 13:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice edit...

...to Hibernia. Dppowell 13:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Constantinian shift

Come back to the Talk:Constantinian shift page please. Thanks LoveMonkey (talk) 17:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Royal

An editor has removed your section "Eldest Daughter of the King" from the article, stating that it is unsourced. You may wish to add references and re-publish the section. Dougz1 (talk) 19:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Colchester

Is your objection that Geoffrey of Monmouth was in error, or that he has been misquoted? If the former, it is not necessarily to be removed, as it does say something about te profile of Colchester in Geoffrey's time? Kevin McE (talk) 10:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-Latin pronunciation article

I copied your beautiful article on Anglo-Latin pronunciation from your sandbox to Traditional English pronunciation of Latin. Other than adding links and a few minor adjustments to the wording of the intro, the only change was to add an overview of stress placement and English vowel length. kwami (talk) 03:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Theresa thaler

A long time ago, you made this edit. Could you provide me with a reference for it? Thanks. Rwflammang (talk) 19:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

respellings

Almost two years ago you added a proposal on the respelling key talk page about a US dictionary-type transcription. I didn't see it until just now. There is such a system at EnPR, which (being AHD) maybe isn't as phonemic with rhotic vowels as we'd like. We're talking about improvements, and whether it should be encouraged at MOS pronunciation. kwami (talk) 21:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coronation of the Holy Roman Emperor

Hello! I'm working on an article about Coronation of the Holy Roman Emperor. I've noticed that you added the table of imperial coronations to this article. Do you still have the source of these information? I need a list of coronations of Holy Roman Empresses; perhaps your source can help me. Surtsicna (talk) 18:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings

Hello there.You had recently made a request on the Treaty of Troyes article for me to rewrite a piece of information(line 13).I had rewritten it and would be appreciating your new oppinion.Thank you very much.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 23:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prophecy of the Popes‎

If you need any additional sources (like from old newspapers, LexisNexis, etc) please contact me whenever. « ₣M₣ » 18:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)